So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

I dont know. I struggle with this a lot too. My current thought is that evil is in the intention, not the result. But i could be wrong.

It's unlikely you are going to kill anyone, and even if you did the chance of him being a child torturer is even less. It may not be something you need to worry about too much.

I don't know how you want to handle it, but my approach is not to do anything manifestly egregious (at least not while anyone is looking) and only think about ethical theory when posting on the philosophy forum of DDO. I don't rape little girls and I do hand back dropped money and wallets. On the other hand I use Pirate Bay. I have no objection to sensual pleasures, but I also believe there is more to life than that. I give to charity, but I spend far more on booze and tobacco.

I am morally inconsistent, but I have no intention of changing. However that does not prevent me from pontificating about ethics and arguing that morality is objective. To quote Whitman, 'A foolish consistency is the hob-goblin of little minds'.

At 5/28/2016 8:45:37 PM, keithprosser wrote:It's unlikely you are going to kill anyone, and even if you did the chance of him being a child torturer is even less. It may not be something you need to worry about too much.

Thats irrelevent. Its a hypothetical to explain my thoughts

I don't know how you want to handle it, but my approach is not to do anything manifestly egregious (at least not while anyone is looking) and only think about ethical theory when posting on the philosophy forum of DDO. I don't rape little girls and I do hand back dropped money and wallets. On the other hand I use Pirate Bay. I have no objection to sensual pleasures, but I also believe there is more to life than that. I give to charity, but I spend far more on booze and tobacco.

That doesn't really help me. Why is giving back wallets and money ethical? These are the questions I'm asking, and this doesn't answer it.

I am morally inconsistent, but I have no intention of changing. However that does not prevent me from pontificating about ethics and arguing that morality is objective. To quote Whitman, 'A foolish consistency is the hob-goblin of little minds'.

I agree that morality is objective, I think. But this doesn't really posit anything substantive for me

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

That's pretty much what defines philosophy.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

There are other forms of said ethics that may be more appealing. For example, under rule utilitarianism, what you did was wrong, because going by the rule of murdering people on a whim won't bring about maximum happiness in general. Although some object that rule utilitarianism just collapses into act utilitarianism, in which case what you did was right.

You might also want to look into nihilistic systems of ethics. In which case whatever action you take has no moral value at all.

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

That's pretty much what defines philosophy.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

There are other forms of said ethics that may be more appealing. For example, under rule utilitarianism, what you did was wrong, because going by the rule of murdering people on a whim won't bring about maximum happiness in general. Although some object that rule utilitarianism just collapses into act utilitarianism, in which case what you did was right.

Interesting, is rule utilitarianism where the morality of means is determined by utilitarianism?

You might also want to look into nihilistic systems of ethics. In which case whatever action you take has no moral value at all.

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

I dont know. I struggle with this a lot too. My current thought is that evil is in the intention, not the result. But i could be wrong.

No no no. Whether somebody accidently or purposely poisons your coffee it has the same result.

At 5/28/2016 7:52:50 PM, janesix wrote:I dont know. I struggle with this a lot too. My current thought is that evil is in the intention, not the result. But i could be wrong.

Why would evil be in the intention rather than the consequence? Explain

Because you are responsible for your intentions, while the consequences arent inyour control.

That's lazy. A little effort in determining the results can go a long way. Look at the policies of American Democrats, they are all well intentioned but have policies that hurt the poor and minorities. If they actually researched their policies tgey could enact good ones that help people

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

That's pretty much what defines philosophy.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

There are other forms of said ethics that may be more appealing. For example, under rule utilitarianism, what you did was wrong, because going by the rule of murdering people on a whim won't bring about maximum happiness in general. Although some object that rule utilitarianism just collapses into act utilitarianism, in which case what you did was right.

Interesting, is rule utilitarianism where the morality of means is determined by utilitarianism?

Pretty much. Instead of acting according to what brings about the most happiness, you act according to the rule that would bring about the most happiness.

You might also want to look into nihilistic systems of ethics. In which case whatever action you take has no moral value at all.

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

That's pretty much what defines philosophy.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

There are other forms of said ethics that may be more appealing. For example, under rule utilitarianism, what you did was wrong, because going by the rule of murdering people on a whim won't bring about maximum happiness in general. Although some object that rule utilitarianism just collapses into act utilitarianism, in which case what you did was right.

Interesting, is rule utilitarianism where the morality of means is determined by utilitarianism?

Pretty much. Instead of acting according to what brings about the most happiness, you act according to the rule that would bring about the most happiness.

Groovy

You might also want to look into nihilistic systems of ethics. In which case whatever action you take has no moral value at all.

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

Choose virtue ethics.

The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

Choose virtue ethics.

Thats the one I like the least lol. But I dont know much about it

Assuming you've only read about Platonic and Aristotelian virtue ethics (set aside Anscombe and Foot for now), what problems do you have with it? :P Maybe Mencian ethics doesn't have the same problems ;)

The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

Choose virtue ethics.

Thats the one I like the least lol. But I dont know much about it

Assuming you've only read about Platonic and Aristotelian virtue ethics (set aside Anscombe and Foot for now), what problems do you have with it? :P Maybe Mencian ethics doesn't have the same problems ;)

I dont really have problems with it, but the one sentence explanation that they gave in the youtube video I didn't really gel with. I wasn't real feelin it spiritually you know?

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

Choose virtue ethics.

Thats the one I like the least lol. But I dont know much about it

Assuming you've only read about Platonic and Aristotelian virtue ethics (set aside Anscombe and Foot for now), what problems do you have with it? :P Maybe Mencian ethics doesn't have the same problems ;)

I dont really have problems with it, but the one sentence explanation that they gave in the youtube video I didn't really gel with. I wasn't real feelin it spiritually you know?

Lol... okay.

The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

Choose virtue ethics.

Thats the one I like the least lol. But I dont know much about it

Assuming you've only read about Platonic and Aristotelian virtue ethics (set aside Anscombe and Foot for now), what problems do you have with it? :P Maybe Mencian ethics doesn't have the same problems ;)

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

Choose virtue ethics.

Thats the one I like the least lol. But I dont know much about it

Assuming you've only read about Platonic and Aristotelian virtue ethics (set aside Anscombe and Foot for now), what problems do you have with it? :P Maybe Mencian ethics doesn't have the same problems ;)

Out of curiosity, what's the difference?

Mostly what they stressed in terms of substantial ethical views... Mencius emphasised how moral virtues are realised as relational virtues like filial piety, fraternal love, etc.

As for their justifications, they're similar though not identical. Mencius was less obviously teleological, did not rely much on the human soul (but rather characterised the lower and higher parts of our mental faculties as a 'heart-mind vs. sensual organs' dichotomy), etc.

But yeah, they all stressed that morality is needed for a fully functioning human, placed an emphasis on who people are rather than the consequences of their actions or the rules they follow, advocated the doctrine of the mean, etc.

The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

I am reminded of an old saying; The road to Hell is often paved with good intentions" meaning just because you meant to do good doesn't mean good will result and you pay for those actions in Hell.The flip side of that would be the road to Heaven will often include bad intentions. IMO because your scenario resulted in good, that deed should be considered good

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

In my experience, morality only makes sense with a God. All of those theories you mentioned have some serious problems that I could go into if you wanted me to.

But to answer your question, you would be wrong for randomly killing the owner of the gas station (due to intent and etc...). But it would turn out that your wrong action lead to something good.

But simply because your wrong action lead to something good, doesn't make the original action good.

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

In my experience, morality only makes sense with a God. All of those theories you mentioned have some serious problems that I could go into if you wanted me to.

But to answer your question, you would be wrong for randomly killing the owner of the gas station (due to intent and etc...). But it would turn out that your wrong action lead to something good.

But simply because your wrong action lead to something good, doesn't make the original action good.

Hope that makes sense.

Ah, so if God wasn't watching over you, you would be ok with raping a baby? The only thing that stops you, or anyone else doing that is God watching you.

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

In my experience, morality only makes sense with a God. All of those theories you mentioned have some serious problems that I could go into if you wanted me to.

But to answer your question, you would be wrong for randomly killing the owner of the gas station (due to intent and etc...). But it would turn out that your wrong action lead to something good.

But simply because your wrong action lead to something good, doesn't make the original action good.

Hope that makes sense.

Ah, so if God wasn't watching over you, you would be ok with raping a baby? The only thing that stops you, or anyone else doing that is God watching you.

Well, that was random.

If there wasn't a God, then all would be permissible. Objective/meaningful morality couldn't exist without a God. We discussed this in a previous debate.

But God wrote the moral law on our hearts and gave us the ability to make decisions.

So more interpersonal stuff than just wisdom, bravery, etc. in a bubble?

As for their justifications, they're similar though not identical. Mencius was less obviously teleological, did not rely much on the human soul (but rather characterised the lower and higher parts of our mental faculties as a 'heart-mind vs. sensual organs' dichotomy), etc.

Neo-Aristotelians tend to be naturalists and with that tend to not reference souls or things like that. Rather the values we uncover are the virtues supplied by nature, which is still pretty teleological I guess. How does Mencius compare to that?

But yeah, they all stressed that morality is needed for a fully functioning human, placed an emphasis on who people are rather than the consequences of their actions or the rules they follow, advocated the doctrine of the mean, etc.

At 5/28/2016 7:44:45 PM, Hayd wrote:So ethics is an awesome subject, I love it. But my problem is that literally every theory makes equal sense to me. Thus I'm confused.

For example, if I went into a gas station and killed the owner of the store, and it turned out that the owner of the store had been torturing 3 girls in his basement for 10 years, was what I did good or bad? I meant to do bad, but I ended up doing good. Consequentialism says that I did a morally good thing since the consequence was good, but deontology says I did a bad thing since I meant to do harm. Both make sense to me, and so do most of the sects of both (although I don't know much about sects of deontology). Utilitarianism, hedonistic, all of them make sense. yet they can't all be right at the same time so I'm super confused. Does anybody else feel this way? And how do I get past this?

I dont know. I struggle with this a lot too. My current thought is that evil is in the intention, not the result. But i could be wrong.

So, was Hitler morally justified as he felt that his intentions were good?